From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com (srinidhi kasagar) Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:40:33 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] ARM l2x0: check whether l2x0 already enabled In-Reply-To: <1259070933.16239.7.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1259014663.2742.3.camel@vinay-desktop> <1259022908.2742.9.camel@vinay-desktop> <1259070933.16239.7.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <1259176233.30221.4.camel@vinay-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 14:55 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:35 +0000, Surinder P Singh wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 6:05 AM, srinidhi kasagar > > wrote: > > > > >> 2 points: > > >> > > >> 1. Since this code is also valid for devices based on pre-ARMv6, maybe > > >> making this code conditional for >=ARMv6 would be cleaner ? > > > rather it depends on l2 controller being used. L210 controllers > > > do not have such restrictions whereas l220/pl310 have such kind > > > of secure/non-secure restrictions. So would it be better to keep > > > condition based on l2 controller being used? > > > > > > > Thats probably better. You can read the L2 cache ID register to figure > > out if its a L210/220 or PL310 and so on. You can couple this check > > with the cpu secure/non-secure state before deciding to write to the > > registers. > > I don't think it's worth the hassle. Just always check whether it is > already enabled without additional ifdefs. IIRC, L210 is used on > RealView PB1176 (not entirely sure). So, does the patch which I have sent still valid which just checks whether l2x0 is already enabled? Srinidhi